As much as I hate to say it, Trump doesn’t have a case here.
ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS PROTECTED SPEECH, even the lies...
The difference is that if the NYT did this against Hillary or another high-ranking Dem, they would be “Interviewed” by Some Democrat in the Justice Department.
Can he sue the women?
“As much as I hate to say it, Trump doesn’t have a case here. ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS PROTECTED SPEECH, even the lies...”
doesn’t matter. the point is that trump is willing to go to the mat with the NYT, including discovery on both sides, meaning that trump has nothing to hide that would lend veracity to the NYT lies. public figures almost never sue in these cases because they don’t have the money and they have something to hide anyway.
I’m pretty sure that if malice can be proven, the public figure issue won’t make a difference.
Trump DOES have a case
It is proven there is collusion between the New York Times and the Clinton campaign
“ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS PROTECTED SPEECH, even the lies...”
NYT is not a politician, Cruzer.
Perhaps. It is a legal issue that will drag on for a while ... long after the election. A better result than possibly getting money out of the NY Times would be to send some of these people to jail. I would think airing his tax returns would be a criminal matter involving the specific people that took this action.
Until he takes an OATH OF OFFICE in a government in our Country he is NOT a politician yet!!!
Sorry these accusations do not qualify as political speech, and thus are not examples of protected free speech. They are claims being made that have not even been vetted to see if they are true. Nor have the looked into the who the women are that are making the claims. For it to be truly political speech, it would have to come from one of his opponents personally.
This is political assassination and slander.
In the law, if it's not true, and they didn't take ordinary measures to check it out--and they're in the business, and are held to some minimal standards--they can be sued for "reckless disregard of the facts."
If the only source is the Clinton campaign, of course, that makes the presumption of reckless disregard even stronger, and then a good lawyer would look for whether the paper actually knew the story was false.
I thought their response looked incredibly weak. The words they didn't say were: We checked this out, and it's true. Just saying, "We couldn't damage his good name because he doesn't have one" is contradictory. They wouldn't have published it if it didn't represent something about his character that wasn't known. The fact that there's open evidence that they've colluded with the Clinton campaign makes the presumption stronger than they're trying to damage Trump.
If that's so, and they know, or ought to know, that the thing's not true, that's libel. Motive + falsehood + potential or realized damage = $.
So if I accuse you of molesting kids, can I just say it was political speech?
This is not correct. False speech which is defamatory is actionable even if made against a public figure if it was published with malice.
Disagree.
Trump didn’t say the things this respondent is claiming tha that he said.
I think NYT just dug themselves a bigger hole.
This isn’t political speech.
That is not technically correct.
While public figures have far less protection against libel and slander, they do still have protection. You just can’t lie or slander with impunity. Newspapers have some responsibility to make sure they are not spreading lies.
They picked a fight with Trumps lawyers? I am hoping this proves to be a very big mistake for them.